| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| :::That's only because she wasn't announced when that picture was released. Same applies for [[Mii]] and [[Baby Rosalina]].--{{User:Dry Bowser rules!/sig}} 04:36, 1 May 2014 (EDT) | | :::That's only because she wasn't announced when that picture was released. Same applies for [[Mii]] and [[Baby Rosalina]].--{{User:Dry Bowser rules!/sig}} 04:36, 1 May 2014 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| == Critical Reception ==
| | what is the point of her? Is she showing that a new game will contain her? |
| | | [[File:Princess-peach-daisy-and-rosalina|Roslina4315]] |
| We all know that Pink Gold Peach is one of the most hated characters here, so do you think she deserves a section for reception? [[User:Marioguy|Marioguy]] ([[User talk:Marioguy|talk]]) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| :No. We won't follow Wikipedia critical reception sections on fictional video game characters, as we think it's a bit on the, uh, ridiculous side. We allow reception sections only for video games only. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:29, 18 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| :What Baby Luigi said. Don't take "reception" sections on video game characters (or any character for that matter) from Wikipedia seriously because you can't really *rate* a character, compared to a game or a movie, much less one from a minimalist Mario series. You can note their legacy and their influence, but that's usually left to characters like Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser anyway. All in all, it would be a bad idea to create a reception section for characters in general. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 17:30, 18 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| Ok. Thanks, I didn't know that. [[User:Marioguy|Marioguy]] ([[User talk:Marioguy|talk]]) 17:52, 18 November 2015 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Gold Peach ==
| |
| | |
| So, question, should we add ''[[Super Mario Party]]'' regarding appearances on here, or should we create make the Gold Peach redirect into an actual article for that purpose? [[User:Weedle McHairybug|Weedle McHairybug]] ([[User talk:Weedle McHairybug|talk]]) 08:52, 11 December 2018 (EST)
| |
| EDIT: Never mind, turns out that was just an effect from the Golden Drink. [[User:Weedle McHairybug|Weedle McHairybug]] ([[User talk:Weedle McHairybug|talk]]) 08:54, 11 December 2018 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Protect page ==
| |
| | |
| As crap as this character may be, I feel this page should be protected since it's clearly prone to vandalism (maybe because of how unpopular this character is) [[User:Mario Sakuraba|Mario Sakuraba]] ([[User talk:Mario Sakuraba|talk]]) 13:50, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
| :The vandalism has been a returning vandal, but if it becomes a major issue, it will be protected. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:56, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
| :I highly doubt popularity or lack thereof even factors into a majority of the vandalism that occurs here anyway. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 15:43, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
| ::Given they've only vandalized this and Baby Rosalina's pages (with both of them generally being regarded as the most blatant roster-filler ever) I'd say in this case it's likely. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:57, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
| ::I did say ''"majority"'' for a reason. Vandals with personal problems aren't unheard of. I just don't think that's as much the case as Sakuraba seems to think - character quality or popularity certainly doesn't factor into whether or not a page should be protected outside of high traffic, that's for sure. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 18:46, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
| :::Just making sure. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:51, September 5, 2019 (EDT)
| |
